Best Lens for Food Photography with the Sony Alpha a6000

<p>Best lens for food photography with the Sony Alpha a6000</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I currently run a food instagram and am looking to expand to a full blog with recipes etc ( Visit http://instagram.com/Slammer_Style_food ). With the expansion I am looking to upgrade my photo quality as well. I am not a expert on cameras or photography, but am learning and passionate. </p>

<p>I have narrowed down my desired camera to the new Sony Alpha a6000. I have been looking at lens options, and am trying to figure out what is best for what I am looking to do. I am looking for a lens that will most importantly take good macro shots of my food, while giving me the versatility to take nature and outdoor shots as well.</p>

<p>I am looking at either getting the 16mm-50mm lens package:<br>

http://store.sony.com/a6000-mirrorless-camera-w-16-50mm-lens-zid27-ILCE6000L/B/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-a6000-Cameras</p>

<p>OR getting the camera body only and purchasing a more specific lens:</p>

<p>1. E-mount Lens (50mm F1.8 OSS)<br>

http://store.sony.com/e-mount-lens-50mm-f1.8-oss--zid27-SEL50F18//cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-a6000-Cameras?var_id=27-SEL50F18%2FB<br>

2. 35mm f/1.8 Prime Lens<br>

http://store.sony.com/35mm-f-1.8-prime-lens-zid27-SEL35F18/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-a6000-Cameras</p>

<p>Open to any suggestions! Thanks for your advice. </p>

 

What I'd do is get the camera with the kit lens for general use, and then get a used 50mm or 55mm manual focus macro

lens (try the Nikon or Minolta ones, both are under $100 at keh.com) on an inexpensive adapter. And put that all on a

reasonably priced tripod. The NEX cameras are great for manual focus, and the quality of those older macro lenses is as

good as anything you'll get new and for less money. The macros are more appropriate for food shooting and excel at any

sort of still-life shooting.

<p>none of those lenses are dedicated macros, meaning they dont go near 1:1. the 16-50 has the best close-focus: .25m in the camera's macro mode at 16mm and at .3m at 55mm. however, the 35 and the 50 can blur the backgrounds at large apertures, but are fixed-focal lenses. if you're going for partially-defocused food shots, the 35 would be a good choice. if you want max versatility, get the zoom. IMO the 50 may be a little too long for food shots.. if it were me, i'd probably get the zoom then add a dedicated macro. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL30M35-30mm--mount-Macro/dp/B0054I54JU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397521302&sr=8-1&keywords=sony+e+mount+macro">this one </a>will work without an adaptor, goes to 1:1, and will focus within 4 inches, or more than twice as close as the 16-50. macro lenses focus closer than other lenses, but the tradeoff is they dont focus as fast as other lenses.</p>

<p>I think you will find "your" best lens for food photography as you develop a style and particular approach. Until then I would suggest using a zoom lens with the ability to go from wide angle to moderate telephoto focal lengths.<br>

I have the Sony NEX 6 (with an A6000 on order); based on my experience I would suggest that you buy the body and the 16-70 mm f/4 Sony/Zeiss lens. The 16-50 mm is a nice compact travel lens but by its nature this involves optical quality compromises, I've been very happy with the quality and flexibility of the 16-70mm lens. I'm not sure if you mean "macro" in the sense of magnification ratios on the order of 1:2 tor higher, or a lens capable of good close up photography; the 16-70mm has a maximum magnification ratio of .23x(roughly 1:4). As the Sony E system has adapters allowing the use of lenses with other lens mount designs such as Canon and Nikon, there is a wide choice of specialized macro lenses.The camera/lens combination is obviously an overkill if the only place you plan on presenting the images is on the web, but I think it's a good starting point for your general photography interests as well. I would hold off on buying fast prime lenses until after shooting for some time you feel the need for their specific attributes. In my case I added the 24 mm f/1.8 Sony/Zeiss Sonnar for natural light candids.</p>

<p>for food shots, 1:1 isn't really necessary. looking at your IG blog (nice shots by the way), most of them are full-plate shots with reasonable DoF, with a few slightly defocused backgrounds thrown in. you dont really need to get much more macro for a <a href="http://instagram.com/p/mBE4A6sDTP/">quesadilla shot</a>. or an <a href="http://instagram.com/p/mNxA-XsDfX/">avocado shot.</a> also, for these type of shots, you dont necessarily need a tripod. or better lighting. curious to know what you're currently using -- im guessing it's not a P&S since you do have some defocus there.</p>

<p>so i dont see anything your current shots are missing. that said, if you do shoot a lot of food, i would definitely get a dedicated macro at some point, just in case you want to do an extreme close-up of an olive. 35 works well for APS-C sensors for this kind of work. you probably dont need a 35 macro and a 35/1.8, but i dont see any shots you couldnt get with the 35 macro, which is also going to be tack sharp, slow to focus (lol), and have excellent bokeh, especially at closer focusing distances. 2.8 macros generally have smoother bokeh than 1.8 lenses.</p>

<p>phil makes a good point though that with the sony's focus peaking, macro shots in live view are easy with MF/legacy lenses with an adapter, and they are plentiful in the used market. </p>